Clearlot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful negative behavioral context: no deposits are created and no order is placed. However, it does not disclose whether the attachment is reversible or idempotent, what state changes occur to the offer or intent, or whether any permissions or preconditions beyond 'posted' apply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short declarative sentences front-load the core action and then add two precise exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the core action and side-effect negatives are present and likely sufficient for basic invocation. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves out observable behavior such as return value, idempotence, and failure cases like a non-posted offer, making it only minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only bare string names with 0% description coverage, but the description's 'posted offer' and 'buy intent' map naturally to offer_id and intent_id and imply a posted-status precondition. It adds no further constraints, formatting, or relationship details, but the two-parameter shape is simple enough for an agent to infer the mapping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Attach' plus the object 'posted offer' and target 'buy intent' identifies a specific operation. The exclusions 'No deposits. No order placement.' further distinguish it from commerce-related siblings like open_checkout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives the exact scenario for use: attaching an existing posted offer to a buy intent. The 'No deposits. No order placement.' clauses serve as implicit when-not guidance, signaling this is not a checkout or payment step, though alternative tools are not named explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It partially succeeds by noting a side effect ('Every spec is written to the demand tape') and a non-action ('Does not place orders'). However, it does not explain whether the quote is persisted, how the demand tape is used, whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate/authorization constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact at four short sentences with the main idea 'Free live quote' front-loaded. Every sentence is brief, but the 'demand tape' phrase is cryptic and not immediately meaningful. Overall, it is efficient and avoids redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is considerably incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or usage conditions, and the only behavioral side effect mentioned is the vague 'demand tape' write. The description leaves too many operational details unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters, but it only mentions 'spec' generically. None of the seven parameters (mpn, spec, deadline, quantity, intent_id, max_price_usd, ship_to_country) are described. The description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing a 'Free live quote' that 'Mixes vendor offers and catalog', which conveys the core purpose of getting a quote. It also distinguishes itself from order placement with 'Does not place orders.' However, the phrase 'Every spec is written to the demand tape' introduces unexplained jargon, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool. 'Does not place orders' is an exclusion, but it does not tell the agent when to invoke get_quote rather than search_supply, post_intent, or open_checkout. Usage context is only implied through 'live quote'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly marks the operation as read-only ('Read') and clarifies there is no side effect ('Signal only. Not a fill.'). This is strong transparency for a simple query tool, though it does not discuss auth, data freshness, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely compact with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each short phrase adds value: the read purpose, the data included, the signal-only nature, and the non-fill exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too terse to be fully actionable. An agent still has to guess what spec_hash represents, how limit behaves, and what the response shape looks like. The core purpose is clear, but important invocation details are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for limit and spec_hash, but it defines neither. 'Clustered hashes' hints at what spec_hash might refer to, but the expected format and the meaning of limit are left to inference. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Starts with the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource ('clustered hashes') plus the data returned (intent, offer, search, and miss counts). 'Signal only. Not a fill.' explicitly separates it from fill/cover operations among its siblings. An agent can tell what the tool does without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Not a fill' phrase provides a useful exclusion, implying this is for reading demand signals rather than executing or covering orders. However, no alternative tool is named directly, and there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_supply, get_quote, or cover_intent. Usage context is mostly implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one key behavior—'Does not complete payment'—preventing misuse as a payment tool. However, it does not state whether opening a checkout creates a session, reserves inventory, or requires special permissions, so operational side effects remain opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with the main action front-loaded and the critical non-payment clarification appended. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it omits the meaning of offer_index, the shape of the returned URL, and any prerequisites or side effects. An agent calling this tool correctly would need more context than provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It aligns 'quote' with quote_id but says nothing about offer_index, its optionality, or how it modifies the returned URL. An agent cannot reliably decide whether or how to set offer_index.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('merchant product/checkout URL') tied to a quote, and explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not complete payment'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings such as get_quote or post_offer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for a quote' implies this tool is used when a quote exists and a checkout URL is needed, but it names no sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary among the eight sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says no deposits are involved. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or what happens to intents after clustering, leaving the agent to guess.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The 'No deposits' fragment is elliptical but earns its place; the main flaw is under-specification rather than wordiness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover safety and return semantics, but it mentions neither. The minimal purpose statement is a good start yet insufficient for reliable invocation without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain intent_id or min_quantity. The property names carry some inherent meaning, but the description adds nothing beyond those names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete operation—cluster intents by spec hash—and adds a useful constraint, 'No deposits.' It is not a tautology, so an agent can infer the tool's core behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like open_checkout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to choose open_pool over its siblings, and no alternatives are named. 'No deposits' hints at a boundary but does not state a selection rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully state that the tool is free and does not charge or hold funds, which is important given the financial-looking parameters. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether the intent is publicly visible, whether authentication is required, or whether any follow-up action is triggered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'does not charge or hold funds' clarification is valuable, though 'Free' and 'does not charge' are somewhat redundant. It is appropriately concise but perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, 5 required, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. The agent is left to guess formats for fields like deadline, max_price_usd, and ship_to_country, and cannot tell how this tool relates to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the 8 parameters, including required fields like spec, quantity, max_price_usd, ship_to_country, and deadline. The description does nothing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Record') and the resource ('a buy intent'), which is specific and understandable. It also implies a buyer-side action that contrasts with 'post_offer', though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 'cover_intent' or other siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_offer', 'cover_intent', or 'open_checkout'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context with 'Free. No inventory held here. Merchant stays merchant of record,' clarifying cost, fulfillment scope, and commercial role. However it omits important behaviors such as authentication, idempotency, persistence guarantees, or side effects beyond recording.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief and front-loaded, with the core action first followed by three short constraint phrases. Every sentence adds some contextual value, though some phrasing is cryptic. The compactness works in its favor, but it sacrifices clarity needed for a complex tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 12 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to provide adequate context. It gives the high-level purpose and a few constraints but does not explain required inputs, return behavior, or how this tool fits into the overall offer/intent workflow. An agent would still face significant uncertainty when trying to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only hints at the 'spec' parameter through 'against a spec hash' and loosely implies price/quantity via 'vendor ask,' but none of the 12 parameters are actually described. This is not enough for an agent to confidently fill in required fields like merchant_url, ships_to_country, or unit_price_usd.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Record a vendor ask against a spec hash.' This clearly communicates the tool's primary function and suggests a vendor-side offer action, which helps differentiate it from buyer-oriented siblings like post_intent. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for vendor asks and not inventory holding, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any sibling tool. An agent would have to infer the correct context from the tool name and sibling list rather than from actual routing instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notably discloses a non-obvious side effect: every query is written to a 'demand tape' and misses become 'implicit intents.' This is valuable because the name suggests a read-only search, but the description warns of persistent side effects. However, it omits other behavioral details such as auth needs, rate limits, or return payload.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence is a slogan ('Free supply scan') rather than a specification, and the second uses unexplained jargon ('demand tape', 'implicit intents'). It is concise but sacrifices clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves major gaps: return format, parameter semantics, error behavior, and operational constraints. It does mention the crucial side effect, which prevents a score of 1, but it is far from complete for safe and correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for 'query', 'ship_to_country', or 'limit'. An agent is left to guess that 'query' is free text, 'ship_to_country' is a destination, and 'limit' caps results — none of this is stated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('supply') and a generic action ('scan'), but this mostly restates the tool name. It never explicitly states what the scan returns or what problem it solves, and it lacks enough specificity to distinguish search_supply from siblings like list_demand or post_offer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no decision rule, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.